Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[Jose]

I believe in Creationism because of many of the arguments presented at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.

This is a particularly good site for supporting creationism because it was written by evolutionists attempting to discredit creationism. It is easy to see how good an argument is by how well they rebut it.

I'll bet no one was expecting that!

Isn't it just as valid to say that evolution must be true because there are so many creationists attempting to discredit it? We can just count the attempts to discredit, and then choose who wins on the basis of who's the loudest.

This seems like rather backward logic. Why not look at the actual data for yourself, and figure out what it tells you? Don't take someone else's word for it.

[jerickson314]

Isn't it just as valid to say that evolution must be true because there are so many creationists attempting to discredit it? We can just count the attempts to discredit, and then choose who wins on the basis of who's the loudest.

No, I meant the creationist arguments they tried to rebut but couldn't.

This seems like rather backward logic. Why not look at the actual data for yourself, and figure out what it tells you? Don't take someone else's word for it.

I have looked at some of the actual data. The page presents some, if you take the time to look. I have also looked at evidence on both sides from some other sources.

[ENIGMA]

Isn't it just as valid to say that evolution must be true because there are so many creationists attempting to discredit it? We can just count the attempts to discredit, and then choose who wins on the basis of who's the loudest.

No, I meant the creationist arguments they tried to rebut but couldn't.

Pick one, and we'll be more than happy to dissect it for you.

[jerickson314]

Pick one, and we'll be more than happy to dissect it for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA120.html

There are others, but I don't want to give you too many at once.

[Nyril]

Do you care to elaborate?

Your first link describes the creationist argument as an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. The objection raised is simply not valid. It's like me saying that because you don't know how god did something, god doesn't exist. The argument is false even if evolution is wrong.

As for your second, you'll need to explain. I don't see how you claim victory there.

[ENIGMA]

Pick one, and we'll be more than happy to dissect it for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400.html

(Claim: Evolution cannot explain consciousness or free will.)

Creationism cannot explain the price of tea in China, so what's your point?

Seriously, though, the concepts of conciousness and free will are outside the scope of evolutionary theory. Currently, we honestly don't know about how those work (or in the case of free will if they really do work). The general notion of a spirit or soul or some other form of supernatural conciousness that lasts past death has several major pitfalls, mainly from research in neurology. The best example off the top of my head is mentioned in another thread.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA120.html

(Claim: If our minds arose from lesser animals via natural processes, then our minds may be fallible. Then the conclusions that we come up with are subject to doubt, including the conclusion of evolution itself. )

First off, everything is subject to doubt. Any number of variations of the Matrix or Brain in a Jar philosophical possibilities cannot effectively be ruled out. The closest I've been able to get as a CS major is the notion that if we were in the matrix, given the reliability of computers, we should have seen quite a few major glitches by now, but I digress.

With this in mind, it is quite possible that evolution is not true in the "real world" but only true in the somehow coherent (namely if I think I'm opening a door, I'm not actually stabbing my best friend to death instead, as evidenced by my best friend and I having an AIM chat later) minds which completely mispercieve reality in exactly the wrong ways as to not suffer mysterious ill effects for it, such as unexpectedly walking through walls that dont actually exist, or bumping into ones that do exist but we don't percieve them. But then:

1) Every other proposal suffers the same possibility.
2) Our potentially distorted view of the world is the only one that demonstratably affects us, so for all of our intents and purposes it is the real world.

There are others, but I don't want to give you too many at once.

Next?

[otseng]

Pick one, and we'll be more than happy to dissect it for you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB400.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA120.html

There are others, but I don't want to give you too many at once.

Several comments here. First, let's not simply post URLs to debate. Anyone can do that and it doesn't add much value to debates. Rather, present your argument and evidence and use links as supporting evidence. Second, please start new threads to talk about specific points about C vs E. This thread is long enough and scattered all over the place. And it's tempting my finger to press that "close thread" button.

[steen]

The Scientific Theory of Evolution is not about "believing" anything. It is about research and data, and what that data shows. It is not a belief system propped up by data, but rather the conclusion of what the data actually shows.

And a comment. Creationism frequently tries to portray evolution as "atheist" (it is not), as being about the start of the universe (it is not), as being about how life originated (it is not), or as being "only a theory" (it is not).

For intelligent discussion about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, the discussion needs to actually be about evolution and not whatever creationists dream up about evolution, misrepresents evolution to be, or misunderstand about evolution. Nearly all the arguments I have seen against the science comes from one of those three.

It would be refreshing to see at least one creationist who actually knows what he/she is arguing against. Come on and don't disappoint me.

[Jose]

For intelligent discussion about the Scientific Theory of Evolution, the discussion needs to actually be about evolution and not whatever creationists dream up about evolution, misrepresents evolution to be, or misunderstand about evolution. Nearly all the arguments I have seen against the science comes from one of those three.

I agree. The hooker is that many people have bought into the misrepresentations, and it takes more than merely describing evolution accurately to change their minds. The key to this should be identifying a situation that the creationist view is wholly incapable of explaining, thus to instill a state of cognitive dissonance. The route out of said cognitive dissonance is to re-explain the situation in evolutionary terms. Unfortunately, gods are powerful, and sneaky gods can create things that look old, but aren't. It's hard to get around the "appearance of age" model in which the earth was created on Oct. 26, 4004 BC, but with all of the isotope ratios "just right" and with photons in exactly the right places to look like they came from stars billions of light years away.

So, there is a need not only to present evolution succinctly and accurately, with ample evidence to make the point clearly, but also to explain how the creationist misrepresentations are just that: misrepresentations.

[steen]

It's hard to get around the "appearance of age" model in which the earth was created on Oct. 26, 4004 BC, but with all of the isotope ratios "just right" and with photons in exactly the right places to look like they came from stars billions of light years away.

Well, how do we know that it wasn't created 5 minutes ago, then? With a complete set of created memories, a made-up Bible, made-up scientific journals and whatnot? The moment they have to ?imagine" something other than what can directly be observed, how do we know that everything happens when they imagine rather than any other time? If the world was creation "in motion" so to say, then it could have been done at any point in time. That particular creationist argument was sunk long ago. I believe that even AiG has that on their "do not use" page (not sure though. I'll have to check)

So, there is a need not only to present evolution succinctly and accurately, with ample evidence to make the point clearly, but also to explain how the creationist misrepresentations are just that: misrepresentations.

Agreed. However, the mileage on that does vary. If you point out one issue to creationists, instead of actually acknowledge it, they "shift the goal post."

Rather frustrating, but generally creationists won't accept anything factual anyway. Casual readers, on the other hand, might just notice.